Even the smallest meanest work became
A sweet or glad and glorious sacrament.

Pages

June 01, 2017

Shakespeare as hiranyagarbha and the Copenhagen interpretation

Dear Srikanth,

I agree completely with the first paragraph about problem of MWI in deriving Born rule. I disagree with the second paragraph though. The idea of multiple copies of your consciousness is interesting. But remember, MWI has these copies at the same time and you (what you think currently as you ) are sitting in one of them. You cannot connect in any way with the other copies of your consciousness! In the Copenhagen interpretation, there is no multiplicity. Each observer each time sees just one thing. But the different observers and same observer at different times may see different things! This may be related to Maya!!

But what is clearly jumping out as a Maya , non-real aspect, is that if you set up an experiment to see particle, you see particle. If you set up an experiment to see wave, you see wave!! Maya is basically false illusion. Particles do not have any properties before you measure. Thus it is purely a subjective matter, not objective! In Copenhagen or Bayesian interpretation, observer’s knowledge changes with each observation. Thus it is economical, rather than proliferation of imaginary worlds as in MWI. By the way, the ultimate reality (Brahman) may be unreachable by scientific method.

Modern science follows the belief that every single object/process in nature can be broken down into its constituent parts/process and can be described scientifically. They thought that by that type of study of the individual constituent part/processes they can understand the whole object/process. For example, a reductionist believes that the complexity of the human brain is a result of complex and interacting physical processes. Hence scientists research and try to understand the underlying chemical reactions, with the belief that they can explain intelligence, emotion and all other human behavior purely on the basis of laws of physics and chemistry. But there are no laws in physics and chemistry that can demonstrate even the origin of this very belief on reductionism that scientists have. Ignoring the inconsiderate nature of their belief on reductionism some scientists even go a step further and proclaim that concepts like “god gene” and “mental virus” which they assumingly claim dictate the religious practice.

“Religious belief that the universe is the handiwork of an all-powerful being is not subject to refutation. This sort of reliance on faith may itself have an evolutionary basis. There has been talk of a “god gene”: the idea of an early advantage in the struggle for survival for those endowed with a belief in a hidden patrimony that gives order, purpose and meaning to the universe we experience.”

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins insolently proclaims in his book The Selfish Gene that religiousness appears in a human being due to a defective ‘mental virus.’

But while claiming such things scientists basically forget that anyone can follow the same line of immature analysis and claim that “scientific bluff” that we witness prominent in modern science is also an outcome of ‘scientific bluff gene’ or ‘mental virus’. Whether we can call such type of analysis of scientists a science practice or not that is up to the thoughtful scholars to decide but I strongly feel that modern science is monolithically defending material view at any cost. I sincerely condemn that practice on the name of science.

Even physicists are in constant quest for fundamental particles making up matter and governing the laws of the universe without looking at the object of their study as a whole. Unlike Newtonian physics, modern research takes into account the complex interactions between the particles, rather than looking at them individually. Chaotic systems, such as turbulence, weather patterns and even the behavior of crowds are difficult to explain by the process of scientific reductionism. In addition, in the process of their idolatry studies scientists try to isolate one phenomenon from whole of other reality, but such practice often changes the behavior of real phenomenon. For example, due to our own limitations, it is impossible to measure simultaneously both the position and speed of an electron, because measuring one affects the other. But that is our limitation to conceive things and not the problem of true nature of reality. Therefore, the prominent usage of purest reductionist principles cannot be used to describe anything at fundamental level and they can only be useful for certain utilitarian technological purposes. Laws of Physics and chemistry can provide different varied descriptions for the sensually observable universe but they can never tell anything conclusive about fundamental truth, Origin of Universe and Origin of life.

With Best Regards

Dr Shilpi Saxena, MRSC, Ph.​​

D, FICCE

Women Scientist-DST

Ex-Executive Member of Board of INC-IAH (United Kingdom)

University of Delhi, Delhi-110007

...

On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 4:51 PM, priyedarshi jetli wrote:

Dear Shilpi and Shanta,

I think I am being misunderstood. The thrust of my critique is that if spirituality and the study of consciousness is to be studied or promoted as a science or as experiences or through Vedic scriptures, then it should be done positively as there is a lot there to do positively. It should not be pursued polemically or negatively by bashing science as if science is fascist. And there is a further problem as in this bashing of science, some scientist or some theory is taken to be representative of all scientists and all science. This is a simple strawman and will get you nowhere.

Priyedarshi

...

Dear Shilpi,

This is part of a scientific reduction program that not everyone agrees with. In any case it is reduction of the objects and laws of biology to those of chemistry and physics. Ultimately chemistry is also in this manner to be reduced to physics.

However, your claim, as I remember was not about this but it was that "physics and chemistry domIinate life." Biology is also science and Crick's remark is at best the domination of physics and chemistry over other sciences.

You also questioned earlier "how laws of physics and chemistry are primary and laws of God are not?"

I assume that laws of physics and chemistry are primary to explain the domain of the universe that they do explain. Your bottom line, I take it, is that consciousness is beyond the realm of explanation of physics and chemistry. I do not think that all scientists would disagree with this. On this forum, some say that consciousness is not beyond science, others say that consciousness is primary and causally supervenient over the physical world and a whole lot of other views are being expressed. All are plausible perspectives that can be debated.

Within each science there are a lot of controversies and the science journals are full of debates on them.

For some reason you construct a monolithic picture of science and also assume that there is always a consensus among all scientists about all issues. This is not the case especially with consciousness as we have seen on this forum itself.

You continue to insist that science and scientists are controlling and dominating society and our day to day lives. I have asked you to name some scientists, or even doctors, who are in positions of power like Donald Trump and Narendra Modi, whose policies do govern our day to day lives. I am still waiting for this.

I fail to understand your misscientist hatred of science. I thought many on the spiritual side would rather make the study of consciousness scientific rather than condemn science like you do.

Priyedarshi

30 May 2017

...

Encounters in India

P Trivedi - The Routledge Research Companion to Shakespeare …, 2017

... As the poet and philosopher Sri Aurobindo has put it, in Shakespeare we find the hiranyagarbha, the luminous essence of creativity, which is 'not so much the poet himself thinking about life as life thinking itself out through many mouths'(79). ...

Fasting the Mind: Spiritual Exercises for Psychic Detox

J Gregory - 2017

Role of Religion in Conflict Prevention for Social and Environmental Sustainability: Experiential Insights from India

CP Bhatta - Essays on Sustainability and Management: Emerging …, 2017

... Any religion which lays exclusive emphasis on uniformity does not allow freedom in respect of thought, speech and way of life. Sri Aurobindo observes: Unity we must create, but not necessarily uniformity. ... 163–164. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram. BBC News.(2015). ...

Page 323. 20 WHAT IS A CLASSIC? IS SHAKESPEARE A CLASSIC? Sean Keilen - It is my wish instead that no one in the small circle of those who read these pages would ever again think to write about, for, or against [Shakespeare ...

Gandhi, Smuts and Race in the British Empire: Of Passive and Violent Resistance

16 hours ago - sa_symbol. Sri Aurobindo. Savitri. A Legend and a Symbol. This website is posted with the official permission of the Copyright Department of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram and Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust valid xhtml ...

13 hours ago - We present here the major Upanishads in the light of Sri Aurobindo, which may be useful for the spiritual seeker, the scholar of religion and philosophy, and the student interested in India's spiritual tradition, her ...

18 hours ago - Sri Aurobindo calls the psychic, “the less negative door to the Divine.” What does he mean by “ less negative”? In the traditional yogas, you try to go out of the manifestation to reach the unmanifest ...